linux-kernel - Re: Linux 2.6.35/TIPC 2.0 ABI breaking changes

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20101020225929.GT8781@llucax.com.ar>
Date:	Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:59:29 -0300
From:	Leandro Lucarella <luca@...cax.com.ar>
To:	Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@...csson.com>
Cc:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net" 
	<tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@...driver.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.35/TIPC 2.0 ABI breaking changes

Leandro Lucarella, el 20 de octubre a las 16:23 me escribiste:
> Leandro Lucarella, el 20 de octubre a las 15:28 me escribiste:
> > Jon Maloy, el 20 de octubre a las 14:10 me escribiste:
> > > <...>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Remember, permitting both is a superset of the current one 
> > > > (NBO only) 
> > > > > so it is fully backwards compatible. We break absolutly nothing by 
> > > > > permitting this.
> > > > > 
> > > > Thats effectively reverting both our patches though, isn't it 
> > > > (not that I'm disagreeing with it, just looking for 
> > > > clarification).  If we revert my patch and reintroduce the 
> > > > htohl mechanism which tracks endianess, we might as well 
> > > > revert the TIPC_SUB_SERVICE flag as well, yeah?
> > > 
> > > Absolutely. I think it was a mistake to change that value.
> > > But I don't think we need to reintroduce the htohl(). That
> > > was just one way of doing it. If I understood your suggestion
> > > from yesterday correctly you converted the whole message within
> > > one if()clause, without any htohl(). I have have no problem with 
> > > that approach.
> > 
> > There is a difference between both solutions, the htohl() version
> > tracked the need for swap as a struct subscription member (which was
> > used when sending back events). Neils patch doesn't do that tracking.
> > I don't really know the implications of this, but maybe it would be
> > a wise idea to stay in the safe side and revert both patches for now.
> 
> BTW, I tried 2.6.37 reverting both offending patches and everything
> seems to work well.

I meant 2.6.35.7.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Karma police
arrest this girl,
her Hitler hairdo
is making me feel ill
and we have crashed her party.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/